Bass Pro and Beretta Cleared After Friend’s Negligent Discharge Leaves Man Amputated in Car Shooting

Listed To This Article: Play in new window | Download | Embed

You can also subscribe via Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | | More

EMPORIA, KS — The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that Bass Pro Outdoor World and Beretta U.S.A. are immune from a product-liability lawsuit filed by Marquise Johnson, who was accidentally shot by a friend attempting to disassemble a Beretta handgun inside a vehicle.

The case, Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, involved a 2018 incident where André Lewis, believing a pistol could not fire without a magazine, pulled the trigger to disassemble his Beretta APX while sitting in a parked car. The handgun, which had a live round chambered, discharged and struck Johnson in the legs, leading to a partial leg amputation.

Johnson filed suit against the gun’s manufacturer, importer, and retailer—Beretta Italy, Beretta U.S.A., and Bass Pro—alleging that the handgun was defective for lacking a magazine disconnect safety and loaded-chamber indicator. The Lyon District Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law shielding firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability when their products are misused criminally or unlawfully.

The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court, arguing that PLCAA immunity should only apply when a discharge is intentional. However, the Kansas Supreme Court reinstated the original decision, holding that the PLCAA bars Johnson’s lawsuit because the gun was discharged due to a “volitional act”—Lewis’ intentional trigger pull—that constituted a criminal offense under Kansas law.

While no charges were filed against Lewis, the Supreme Court found that his actions violated K.S.A. 21-6308(a)(3)(B), which criminalizes discharging a firearm on a public road and is classified as a strict-liability crime, requiring no criminal intent.

The Court rejected Johnson’s claim that a lack of intent exempted the act from PLCAA protections. The ruling emphasized that the federal statute does not require intent to discharge the weapon, only that a volitional act (like pulling the trigger) causes a discharge that constitutes a crime.

This decision reinforces a key principle behind the PLCAA: firearm manufacturers and retailers are not liable when their lawfully sold products are later used in criminal conduct, even if unintentionally. The Court also underscored that even if the gun’s design had shortcomings, federal law recognizes the act of criminal misuse as the sole proximate cause of injury in such cases.

This ruling aligns with similar interpretations in other jurisdictions and affirms the legal insulation provided to the firearms industry when its products are used contrary to their intended operation, whether through ignorance or carelessness.

From a Second Amendment perspective, this decision underscores the strength of federal protections for lawful gun manufacturers and sellers, reaffirming that responsibility for unsafe handling lies with the individual, not the industry. The ruling preserves the critical balance that allows Americans to access firearms for lawful purposes while protecting manufacturers from liability when users act unlawfully or irresponsibly.